I certainly doubt the latter portion. From my observations, whether the professoriat at any given university cares about teaching well or not has little to do with their funding sources.
The professoriat is not the university. That, actually, is one of the changes in academia that entangles with the quote above: universities are becoming money-making machines and the professoriat becomes the proletariat—nothing more than salaried employees (notice what’s happening to tenure).
That, actually, is one of the changes in academia that entangles with the quote above: universities are becoming money-making machines and the professoriat becomes the proletariat—nothing more than salaried employees (notice what’s happening to tenure).
Though it would be weird if that were what Taleb was talking about: he has nothing but contempt for the institution of tenure (I think another of Eugine’s quotes makes that clear). For Taleb, the proletarianization of professors is a good thing, and presumably he doesn’t think that this is the cause of the degeneration (if there is in fact any) of higher education.
presumably he doesn’t think that this is the cause of the degeneration (if there is in fact any) of higher education.
True, it’s more likely to be a consequence.
If you see yourself primarily as a business with the task of exchanging cheapest-to-deliver services for money, an ossified and unyielding labor force is something you very much do not want.
I suspect that the root of the problem goes to the fact that the universities are supposed to be both centers of research and teaching institutions. It worked well on small scale when the few students were, basically, professors’ apprentices. But it doesn’t work well for the delivery of education to the masses.
I suspect that the root of the problem goes to the fact that the universities are supposed to be both centers of research and teaching institutions.
In my estimation (having worked at several universities of various size and prestige, and more recently having consulted at all sorts of businesses) the problem is a common problem in a lot of American business/government since the 1970s/80s- the rise of professional management.
At large flagship U down the street from my house, professor labor costs have dropped markedly (the trend has been to replace tenure track lines with adjuncts and grad students as well as to increase grant overhead. In the science departments, many professors turn a net profit because grant overhead is larger than their salary costs). Enrollment is way up, tuition is way, way up. A drive to leverage university held patents has created massive profits for the university (with some absurdity along the way- a professor tried to start a company only to get a cease and desist order from a semi-conductor company. The university had sold the rights to his research to the semi-conductor company.)
And yet- the university finds itself on the verge of bankruptcy- why? Because management has exploded. The university now has a fellowship office (staffed entirely by managers who add no direct value), not one, but two bureaucratic offices devoted to education quality (how many people does it take to administer teacher feedback forms? Apparently about 20, of which several make more than 100k a year (roughly 5x an adjunct teaching a full load of 10 courses). Twenty years ago, all of the deans were tenured professors who rotated into the job for a few years, now all but one are outside hires who are deans full time. The last president they hired made an absurd amount of money, and brought with him several subordinates all making 150k+ a year. I often wonder how that negotiation went- “I need not only my salary, but I need these extra people to do the parts of the job I don’t like.”
The problem is insidious- you hire some managers to deal with work no one wants to do. But then, they start hiring people to deal with work THEY don’t want to do, so on and so on. Pretty soon all your recent hires have nothing to do with the core competency of your business and they are eating all your profit from within. Its also damn near impossible to get rid of them, because by this point all the hiring and firing that no one wanted to deal with has become their domain.
Its not just education, I’ve consulted with companies that have more IT project managers than developers, that spend more money on medical benefits-management then they would have spent if they simply paid every claim that walked through the door,etc.
I would call it “being taken over by bureaucracy”, but I basically agree.
At private companies the bureaucracy is constrained by market pressures (unless the company finds a particularly juicy spot at the government trough), but for colleges and universities these pressures have been largely absent. Until now.
I expect the next decade to be pretty painful for, um, institutions of higher learning.
At private companies the bureaucracy is constrained by market pressures
I disagree- you’d be amazed how inefficient you can be and still be profitable. Lots of very large companies are being strangled by their bureaucracy even while remaining at least somewhat profitable (generally the existence of a huge company is all-in-itself a barrier to entry for competitors). I’ve worked for a surprising number of companies that have the basic problem of “I used to be very profitable, but now I find I’m slightly less profitable despite selling more products at higher margins.” Even worse, I’ve seen attempts to solve the problem derailed by the same management apparatus.
A former boss was fond of blaming MBAs. He had a saying something along the lines of- the core problem with MBAs is the idea that you can good at “business” without being good at any particular business. MBAs march in, say “we need to quantify these decisions” and add a ton of process (which invites the managers in). A decade later, they notice that despite generally better conditions they aren’t as profitable, they higher some big data consultants to come in and we say things like “you are spending $x+100 dollars to better quantify decisions that are only worth $x, and thats not even counting all the time you waste for all the paperwork that the process requires.”
I disagree- you’d be amazed how inefficient you can be and still be profitable.
Constrained, not eliminated :-) If you have certain advantages—e.g. you are a too-big-to-fail bank—you can be horribly bureaucratic and nothing bad will happen to you for a long time.
Generally speaking, I think of the standard trajectory of successful companies as looking something like that:
Start as a lean mean hungry machine. Expand, grow fast.
Become successful, lazy and complacent. Life is easy.
Become fat, ossified, and arthritic. Sudden movements are not possible any more.
Become a dinosaur and either crater from being unable to adapt or be torn to pieces by new lean mean hungry machines.
I guess I have less faith in the constraint. Maybe its because I constantly work with companies who have been between stages 3 and 4 for a very long time.
As an anecdote, many years ago I worked with a fortune 1000 retail company whose inventory system was so bad that I was legitimately surprised they were able to operate and make money. (“According to this you have more shirts in inventory in one store in San Francisco than the entire population of California...”). Much of their IT resources were being eaten by building weird one-off work arounds to the problems (i.e. making sure the shipping system didn’t stop sending items to the store in California just because the inventory system claimed it had infinity shirts). The business side of management was clueless enough about all that they dropped a lot of money hiring people to try to model with the inventory data. The IT side of management told us, point blank, that hiring us wasn’t their idea and they wouldn’t be offering any support. Near as I can tell, the company operated entirely because a bunch of mid-level employers were fighting to get their work done in spite of the ridiculous systems in
Maybe they eventually got their house in order, but I doubt it. Still a highly profitable business that has actually grown since I worked with them.
I don’t think I’ve ever worked with a company that didn’t have at least some production code that had been developed and was currently running in excel spreadsheets, entirely because nearly everytime they tried to do a project through IT it crashed and burned. So business users develop and then run important business processes in excel. A lot of consulting projects start with “all right, let me collect the 5 dozen excel spreadsheets you use for your crucial business processes. Oh, you each have your own version that does things slightly different? Wonderful...”
Maybe its because I constantly work with companies who have been between stages 3 and 4 for a very long time.
That’s because companies between these stages lose the capability to do anything effective themselves, but still have the money to hire lots of consultants :-)
And yes, I am quite familiar with the spectacle of a dozen and a half of mysterious linked Excel spreadsheets which work (“work” is defined as not crashing, it’s not like anyone can check what they output) only if the stars are aligned correctly and no one touches them, ever X-D But that’s usually less a consequence of the metastasing bureaucracy and more a case of not very competent people in over their heads.
But it doesn’t work well for the delivery of education to the masses.
Maybe not, though I would like to see some statistics on that. My prior on this is that education has probably followed the pattern of pretty much every other good thing in 1st world society: it is decade by decade both better and more widely available than it ever has been before.
To clarify, I am not making claims here about how well the higher education works. I am saying that the structure of the US universities where faculty are hired on the basis of their ability to do original research (well, kinda sorta, it’s really the ability to publish) but are expected to teach, often pretty basic stuff to pretty stupid undergrads, that structure is suboptimal.
And the changes are easy to see: tenure is becoming harder and harder to get, while adjuncts (who are generally expected to have a Ph.D. but are not expected to do research) are multiplying on all campuses.
I think you have confused adjuncts for “lecture” positions or other “visiting” faculty.
Generally, adjuncts are (very) low paid contract workers- maybe $2k-3k for a 4 credit course who are not expected to publish (they generally have little to no access to university research resources, not even an office on campus!, so publishing is largely impossible) and have no real upward mobility. Most adjuncts work some other full time job (they have to- a full adjunct load generally pays less than 20k a year). These positions aren’t supposed to lead to upward mobility within academia.
In some disciplines, there are other non-tenure track positions (lecturers, research associates,etc) which are early career positions (in particular, they tend to come with some access to university resources, so that publishing is at least somewhat possible.) These on top of postdocs, which are early career positions.
I apologize then, but the post I was replying to seemed to imply (to me at least) that most adjuncts can continue a research effort and move into higher positions.
I wanted to be clear- that
adjuncts generally have no more access to research resources than janitors do. This makes maintaining an active research effort impossible in most disciplines.
Unlike postdocs, lecture positions,etc adjuncts are explicitly not career positions- on top of no opportunity to research, the university expects the position is not your primary job.
This doesn’t imply that people hired as adjuncts have no desire for upward mobility.
For most adjuncts (myself sometimes included), adjuncting is not their primary job- this does imply they don’t have much desire for upward mobility within academia.
Ability to publish gets you to the interview stage, the rest is good old-fashioned politics.
True, but the point is, at the faculty hiring stage no one at all cares about teaching ability.
Adjuncts are still expected to publish, unless they have no interest at all in upward mobility.
Upward mobility to where? If you want a better position—a tenure track, a job at a lab or a think tank—sure, publishing will increase your chances. But the university is interested in adjuncts as warm bodies to teach students without all that tenure commitment. Publishing may be a prerequisite for advancement, but it is not a prerequisite for the job they are holding.
at the faculty hiring stage no one at all cares about teaching ability.
Have you been on hiring committees? I’ve been involved with five at three universities. All of them discussed the teaching statements of the primary candidates.
I don’t think you have a good grasp on the adjunct situation, either, but rereading the thread it doesn’t look like it matters much.
at the faculty hiring stage no one at all cares about teaching ability.
To date I’ve been involved with five hiring committees and three institutions—one Big Ten, one private, and one state school. All five discussed teaching ability; it’s standard practice for candidates to write teaching statements. A search of mathjobs.org for “teachin
I certainly doubt the latter portion. From my observations, whether the professoriat at any given university cares about teaching well or not has little to do with their funding sources.
The professoriat is not the university. That, actually, is one of the changes in academia that entangles with the quote above: universities are becoming money-making machines and the professoriat becomes the proletariat—nothing more than salaried employees (notice what’s happening to tenure).
Though it would be weird if that were what Taleb was talking about: he has nothing but contempt for the institution of tenure (I think another of Eugine’s quotes makes that clear). For Taleb, the proletarianization of professors is a good thing, and presumably he doesn’t think that this is the cause of the degeneration (if there is in fact any) of higher education.
True, it’s more likely to be a consequence.
If you see yourself primarily as a business with the task of exchanging cheapest-to-deliver services for money, an ossified and unyielding labor force is something you very much do not want.
I suspect that the root of the problem goes to the fact that the universities are supposed to be both centers of research and teaching institutions. It worked well on small scale when the few students were, basically, professors’ apprentices. But it doesn’t work well for the delivery of education to the masses.
In my estimation (having worked at several universities of various size and prestige, and more recently having consulted at all sorts of businesses) the problem is a common problem in a lot of American business/government since the 1970s/80s- the rise of professional management.
At large flagship U down the street from my house, professor labor costs have dropped markedly (the trend has been to replace tenure track lines with adjuncts and grad students as well as to increase grant overhead. In the science departments, many professors turn a net profit because grant overhead is larger than their salary costs). Enrollment is way up, tuition is way, way up. A drive to leverage university held patents has created massive profits for the university (with some absurdity along the way- a professor tried to start a company only to get a cease and desist order from a semi-conductor company. The university had sold the rights to his research to the semi-conductor company.)
And yet- the university finds itself on the verge of bankruptcy- why? Because management has exploded. The university now has a fellowship office (staffed entirely by managers who add no direct value), not one, but two bureaucratic offices devoted to education quality (how many people does it take to administer teacher feedback forms? Apparently about 20, of which several make more than 100k a year (roughly 5x an adjunct teaching a full load of 10 courses). Twenty years ago, all of the deans were tenured professors who rotated into the job for a few years, now all but one are outside hires who are deans full time. The last president they hired made an absurd amount of money, and brought with him several subordinates all making 150k+ a year. I often wonder how that negotiation went- “I need not only my salary, but I need these extra people to do the parts of the job I don’t like.”
The problem is insidious- you hire some managers to deal with work no one wants to do. But then, they start hiring people to deal with work THEY don’t want to do, so on and so on. Pretty soon all your recent hires have nothing to do with the core competency of your business and they are eating all your profit from within. Its also damn near impossible to get rid of them, because by this point all the hiring and firing that no one wanted to deal with has become their domain.
Its not just education, I’ve consulted with companies that have more IT project managers than developers, that spend more money on medical benefits-management then they would have spent if they simply paid every claim that walked through the door,etc.
I would call it “being taken over by bureaucracy”, but I basically agree.
At private companies the bureaucracy is constrained by market pressures (unless the company finds a particularly juicy spot at the government trough), but for colleges and universities these pressures have been largely absent. Until now.
I expect the next decade to be pretty painful for, um, institutions of higher learning.
I disagree- you’d be amazed how inefficient you can be and still be profitable. Lots of very large companies are being strangled by their bureaucracy even while remaining at least somewhat profitable (generally the existence of a huge company is all-in-itself a barrier to entry for competitors). I’ve worked for a surprising number of companies that have the basic problem of “I used to be very profitable, but now I find I’m slightly less profitable despite selling more products at higher margins.” Even worse, I’ve seen attempts to solve the problem derailed by the same management apparatus.
A former boss was fond of blaming MBAs. He had a saying something along the lines of- the core problem with MBAs is the idea that you can good at “business” without being good at any particular business. MBAs march in, say “we need to quantify these decisions” and add a ton of process (which invites the managers in). A decade later, they notice that despite generally better conditions they aren’t as profitable, they higher some big data consultants to come in and we say things like “you are spending $x+100 dollars to better quantify decisions that are only worth $x, and thats not even counting all the time you waste for all the paperwork that the process requires.”
Constrained, not eliminated :-) If you have certain advantages—e.g. you are a too-big-to-fail bank—you can be horribly bureaucratic and nothing bad will happen to you for a long time.
Generally speaking, I think of the standard trajectory of successful companies as looking something like that:
Start as a lean mean hungry machine. Expand, grow fast.
Become successful, lazy and complacent. Life is easy.
Become fat, ossified, and arthritic. Sudden movements are not possible any more.
Become a dinosaur and either crater from being unable to adapt or be torn to pieces by new lean mean hungry machines.
I guess I have less faith in the constraint. Maybe its because I constantly work with companies who have been between stages 3 and 4 for a very long time.
As an anecdote, many years ago I worked with a fortune 1000 retail company whose inventory system was so bad that I was legitimately surprised they were able to operate and make money. (“According to this you have more shirts in inventory in one store in San Francisco than the entire population of California...”). Much of their IT resources were being eaten by building weird one-off work arounds to the problems (i.e. making sure the shipping system didn’t stop sending items to the store in California just because the inventory system claimed it had infinity shirts). The business side of management was clueless enough about all that they dropped a lot of money hiring people to try to model with the inventory data. The IT side of management told us, point blank, that hiring us wasn’t their idea and they wouldn’t be offering any support. Near as I can tell, the company operated entirely because a bunch of mid-level employers were fighting to get their work done in spite of the ridiculous systems in
Maybe they eventually got their house in order, but I doubt it. Still a highly profitable business that has actually grown since I worked with them.
I don’t think I’ve ever worked with a company that didn’t have at least some production code that had been developed and was currently running in excel spreadsheets, entirely because nearly everytime they tried to do a project through IT it crashed and burned. So business users develop and then run important business processes in excel. A lot of consulting projects start with “all right, let me collect the 5 dozen excel spreadsheets you use for your crucial business processes. Oh, you each have your own version that does things slightly different? Wonderful...”
That’s because companies between these stages lose the capability to do anything effective themselves, but still have the money to hire lots of consultants :-)
And yes, I am quite familiar with the spectacle of a dozen and a half of mysterious linked Excel spreadsheets which work (“work” is defined as not crashing, it’s not like anyone can check what they output) only if the stars are aligned correctly and no one touches them, ever X-D But that’s usually less a consequence of the metastasing bureaucracy and more a case of not very competent people in over their heads.
Maybe not, though I would like to see some statistics on that. My prior on this is that education has probably followed the pattern of pretty much every other good thing in 1st world society: it is decade by decade both better and more widely available than it ever has been before.
To clarify, I am not making claims here about how well the higher education works. I am saying that the structure of the US universities where faculty are hired on the basis of their ability to do original research (well, kinda sorta, it’s really the ability to publish) but are expected to teach, often pretty basic stuff to pretty stupid undergrads, that structure is suboptimal.
And the changes are easy to see: tenure is becoming harder and harder to get, while adjuncts (who are generally expected to have a Ph.D. but are not expected to do research) are multiplying on all campuses.
Some problems with your perception of American academia:
Ability to publish gets you to the interview stage, the rest is good old-fashioned politics.
Adjuncts are still expected to publish, unless they have no interest at all in upward mobility.
Of course the structure is suboptimal, but no one’s really come up with a better alternative.
I think you have confused adjuncts for “lecture” positions or other “visiting” faculty.
Generally, adjuncts are (very) low paid contract workers- maybe $2k-3k for a 4 credit course who are not expected to publish (they generally have little to no access to university research resources, not even an office on campus!, so publishing is largely impossible) and have no real upward mobility. Most adjuncts work some other full time job (they have to- a full adjunct load generally pays less than 20k a year). These positions aren’t supposed to lead to upward mobility within academia.
In some disciplines, there are other non-tenure track positions (lecturers, research associates,etc) which are early career positions (in particular, they tend to come with some access to university resources, so that publishing is at least somewhat possible.) These on top of postdocs, which are early career positions.
I do actually know what an adjunct is. Assumption wrong.
This doesn’t imply that people hired as adjuncts have no desire for upward mobility.
I apologize then, but the post I was replying to seemed to imply (to me at least) that most adjuncts can continue a research effort and move into higher positions.
I wanted to be clear- that
adjuncts generally have no more access to research resources than janitors do. This makes maintaining an active research effort impossible in most disciplines.
Unlike postdocs, lecture positions,etc adjuncts are explicitly not career positions- on top of no opportunity to research, the university expects the position is not your primary job.
For most adjuncts (myself sometimes included), adjuncting is not their primary job- this does imply they don’t have much desire for upward mobility within academia.
True, but the point is, at the faculty hiring stage no one at all cares about teaching ability.
Upward mobility to where? If you want a better position—a tenure track, a job at a lab or a think tank—sure, publishing will increase your chances. But the university is interested in adjuncts as warm bodies to teach students without all that tenure commitment. Publishing may be a prerequisite for advancement, but it is not a prerequisite for the job they are holding.
Have you been on hiring committees? I’ve been involved with five at three universities. All of them discussed the teaching statements of the primary candidates.
I don’t think you have a good grasp on the adjunct situation, either, but rereading the thread it doesn’t look like it matters much.
To date I’ve been involved with five hiring committees and three institutions—one Big Ten, one private, and one state school. All five discussed teaching ability; it’s standard practice for candidates to write teaching statements. A search of mathjobs.org for “teachin